HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3244 - 209 Elmwood Avenue - Decision-1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3244
Applicant: Sandra Greene, Property Owner
Property Location: 209 Elmwood Ave.
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 12, Column 13 and Column 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Side Yard, Other Side Yard and Rear Yard
Publication Dates: December 26, 2022 and December 30, 2022.
Meeting Held On: January 3. 2023.
Summary: Appeal of property owner Sandra Greene for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 12,
Side Yard, Column 13, Other Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 19’ x 12.5’ carport over the existing driveway at 209
Elmwood Avenue. The proposed location of the new carport is 5.5’ from the side property line, and a side
yard setback of 10’ is required. The proposed location aligns with the existing driveway and will be
constructed to be immediately adjacent to the existing house.
The property also has existing rear yard and other side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by this
proposal.
209 Elmwood Avenue is located in a R-1b district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: January 3. 2023.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Donna Fleming
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
Jeffrey M. Chusid, 205 Elmwood Avenue, submitted a letter in support of the variance.
There were no comments in opposition to the appeal.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to Environmental
Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board supports this variance as they support owner-occupied improvements, appreciate the
design of the carport, and also note a large yard in adjacent property. The Planning Board finds no long-
term negative impacts to planning.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3244 for 209 Elmwood Ave. was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the existing siting of the home and existing
driveway. The adjacent property owner is supportive of the request, and the deficient side yard will located
next to a large yard on the nearby property. The Board had no objections to this request.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
• The applicant is proposing to install a new carport over the driveway, immediately adjacent to the
side of the home. The carport will create a deficiency and will reduce the side yard to 5.5’ of the
required 10’.
• The Board has received a letter of support from a neighboring property owner and no comments in
opposition to the variance.
• Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the January
3rd BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance will not produce an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood. The carport is consistent with other homes in the area
and compatible with the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• A carport cannot be constructed to fit the driveway without creating a Side Yard deficiency due to
the proximity of the driveway to the lot line.
• While the carport creates a deficiency, it better meets the needs of the homeowners without
impacting adjacent properties or the neighborhood.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• While proportionally this could be considered a substantial variance, the carport would not
expand beyond the space already taken up by the existing driveway.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• The requested variance is a Type II action that is predetermined to have no negative environmental
impact. Further environmental review is not required.
• Based on the submitted application materials and testimony of the applicant, the Board finds that
the side yard variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing to construct a carport that
encroaches into the required side yard. However, the requested variance will not have any adverse
community impacts, and the Board finds that the benefits to the applicants outweighs the fact that
the difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Fleming
Vote: 5-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner YES
Donna Fleming YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicants outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 12, 13, and 14/15 are the minimum variance that should be granted in order
to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
___________________________ January 3, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals